The Imputation of Christs Righteousness, Polemic 2
Two Sparks more quenched, which fled after the rest from the Forge of Dr. Tho. Tully.
§. 1.
DId I not find that ſome Mens Ignorance and factious Jealouſie is great enough to make them combuſtible Recipients of ſuch Wildfire as thoſe Strictures are; and did not Charity oblige me to do what I have here done, to ſave the aſſaulted Charity of ſuch Perſons, more than to ſave any Reputation of my own, I ſhould repent that I had written one Line in anſwer to ſuch Writings as I have here had to do with: I have been ſo wearied with the haunts of the like Spirit, in Mr. Crandon, Mr. Bagſhaw, Mr. Danvers, and others, that it is a work I have not patience to be much longer in, unleſs it were more neceſſary.
Two ſheets more tell us that the Doctor is yet angry; And little that's better that I can find. In the firſt, he ſaith again, that [I am buſie in ſmoothing my way where none can ſtumble in, a thing never queſtioned by him, nor by any Man elſe, he thinks, who owns the Authority of the ſecond Commandment]. And have I not then good Company and Encouragement not to change my Mind?
But, 1. He feigneth a Caſe ſtated between him and me, who never had to do with him before, but as with others in my Writings, where I ſtate my Caſe my ſelf. 2. He never ſo much as toucheth either of my Diſputations of Original Sin, in which I ſtate my Caſe and defend it. 3. And he falſly feigneth the Caſe ſtated, in words (and he ſuppoſeth in a ſenſe) that I never had do do with: Saying, [I charge you with a new ſecondary Original Sin, whoſe Pedegree is not from Adam: I engage not a ſyllable further]. And pag. 8. [You have aſſerted that this Novel Original Sin is not derived from our Original Father; no line of Communication between them; a ſin beſides that which is derived from Adam, as you plainly and poſſitively affirm]. I never ſaid that it had no Pedegree, no line of Communication, no kind of derivation from Adam. 4. Yea, if he would not touch the Diſputation where I ſtate my Caſe, he ſhould have noted it as ſtated in the very Preface which he writeth againſt; and yet there alſo he totally overlooketh it, though opened in divers Propoſitions. 5. And the words in an Epiſtle to another Mans Book, which he faſteneth ſtill on were theſe; [Over-looking the Intereſt of Children in the Actions of their nearer Parents, and think that they participate of no Guilt, and ſuffer for no Original Sin, but Adams only]. And after, [They had more Original Sin than what they had from Adam]. 6. He tells me, that [I ſeem not to underſtand my own Queſtion, nor to know well how to ſet about my Work]; and he will teach me how to manage the Buſineſs that I have undertaken, and ſo he tells me how I MUST ſtate the Queſtion hereafter, (ſee his words). Reader, ſome Reaſons may put a better Title on this Learned Doctors actions; but if ever I write at this rate, I heartily deſire thee to caſt it away as utter DISHONESTY and IMPUDENCE.
It troubleth me to trouble thee with Repetitions. I hold, 1. That Adams Sin is imputed (as I opened) to his Poſterity. 2. That the degree of Pravity which Cains nature received from Adam, was the diſpoſitive enclining Cauſe of all his Actual Sin: 3. But not a neceſſitating Cauſe of all thoſe Acts; for he might poſſibly have done leſs evil and more good than he did. 4. Therefore not the Total principal Cauſe; for Cains free-will was part of that. 5 Cains actual ſin increaſed the pravity of his nature. 6. And Cains Poſterity were (as I opened it) guilty of Cains actual ſin; and their Natures were the more depraved by his additional pravity, than they would have been by Adams ſin alone (unleſs Grace preſerved or healed any of them).
The Doctor in this Paper, would make his Reader believe that he is [for no meer Logomachies] and that the difference is not in words only, but the thing. And do you think that he differeth from me in any of theſe Propoſitions, or how this ſin is derived from Adam? Yet this now muſt be the Controverſie de re.
Do you think (for I muſt go by thinking) that he holdeth any other Derivation than this? Or did I ever deny any of this? But it is vain to ſtate the Caſe to him: He will over▪look it, and tell me what I ſhould have held, that he may not be thought to make all this Noiſe for nothing.
He ſaith pag. 8. [If it derive in a direct line from the firſt Tranſgreſſion, and have its whole Root faſtened there, what then? why then ſome words which he ſets together are not the beſt ſenſe that can be ſpoken. It is then but words, and yet it is the thing: What he may mean by [a direct Line], and what by [whole Root faſtened] I know not; but I have told the World oft enough what I mean; and what he meaneth, I have little to do with.
But if he think, 1. That Adams Perſon did commit the ſin of Cain, and of all that ever were ſince committed; and that Judas his act, was Adams perſonal act. 2. Or that Adams ſin was a total or neceſſitating Cauſe of all the evil ſince committed; ſo do not I, (nor doth he, I doubt not). And now I am caſt by him on the ſtrait, either to accuſe him of differing de re, and ſo of Doctrinal errour, or elſe that he knoweth not when the difference is de re, and when de nomine, but is ſo uſed to confuſion, that Names and Things do come promiſcuouſly into the Queſtion with him: And which of theſe to chuſe, I know not.
The Reader may ſee that I mentioned [Actual Sin, and Guilt]: And I think few will doubt, but Adams [Actual ſin, and Cains,] were divers; and that therefore, the Guilt that Cains Children had of Adams ſin and of Cains was not the ſame: But that Cauſa cauſae is Cauſa cauſati, and ſo that all following Sin was partly (but partly) cauſed by Adam's, we ſhall ſoon agree.
He addeth that I muſt make good that new Original Sin (for he can make uſe of the word New, and therefore made it) doth mutare naturam, as the Old doth. Anſ. And how far it changeth it, I told him, and he taketh no notice of it: The firſt ſin changed Nature from Innocent into Nocent; the Second changeth it from Nocent into more Nocent: Doth he deny this? Or why muſt I prove any more? Or doth nothing but Confuſion pleaſe him?
3. He ſaith, I muſt prove that the Derivation of Progenitors ſins is conſtant and neceſſary, not uncertain and contingent. Anſ. Of this alſo I fully ſaid what I held, and he diſſembleth it all, as if I had never done it: And why muſt I prove more? By what Law can he impoſe on me what to hold?
But really doth he deny that the Reatus culpae, yea and ad Poenam, the Guilt of nearer Parents ſins is neceſſarily and certainly the Childs, though Grace may pardon it? If he do not, why doth he call on me to prove it? If he do confeſs the Guilt, and deny it neceſſary, when will he tell us what is the Contingent uncertain Cauſe? For we take a Relation (ſuch as Guilt is) neceſſarily to reſult a poſito fundamento.
§. 2. He next cavilleth at my Citations, about which I only ſay, either the Reader will peruſe the cited words, and my words, which ſhew to what end I cited them (to prove our Guilt of our nearer Parents ſins) or he will not. If he will not, I cannot expect that he will read a further Vindication. If he will, he needeth not.
§. 3. His ſecond Spark is Animadverſions on a ſheet of mine, before mentioned, which are ſuch as I am not willing to meddle with, ſeeing I cannot either handle them, or name them as the nature of them doth require, without offending him: And if what is here ſaid (of Imputation and Repreſentation) be not enough, I will add no more, nor write over and over ſtill the ſame things, becauſe a Man that will take no notice of the many Volumns which anſwer all his Objections long ago, will call for more, and will write his Animadverſions upon a ſingle Sheet that was written on another particular occaſion, and pretend to his diſcoveries of my Deceits from the Silence of that Sheet, and from my naming the Antinomians.
I only ſay, 1. If this Mans way of Diſputing were the common way, I would abhor Diſputing, and be aſhamed of the Name.
2. I do friendly deſire the Author of the Friendly Debate, Mr. Sherlock, and all others that would faſten ſuch Doctrines on the Non-Conformiſts, as a Character of the Party, to obſerve that this Doctor ſufficiently confuteth their partiality; and that their Academical Church-Doctors, are as Confuſed, as Vehement maintainers of ſuch expreſſions as they account moſt unſavoury, as any even of the Independants cited by them: Yea, that this Doctor would make us queſtion whether there be now any Antinomians among us, and ſo whether all the Conformiſts that have charged the Conformiſts, yea or the Sectaries, with having among them Men of ſuch unſound Principles, have not wronged them, it being indeed the Doctrine of the Church of England which they maintain, whom I and others call Antinomians and Libertines: And I hope at leaſt the ſober and ſound Non-Conformiſts are Orthodox, when the vehementeſt Sectaries that calumniated my Sermon at Pinners Hall, are vindicated by ſuch a Doctor of the Church.
3. I yet conclude, that if this One Mans Writings do not convince the Reader, of the Sin and Danger of Allarming Chriſtians againſt one another, as Adverſaries to great and neceſſary Doctrines, on the account of meer Words not underſtood, for want of accurateneſs and skill in the expreſſive Art, I take him to be utterly unexcuſable.
Pemble Vind. Gra…. p. 25. It were ſomewhat if it were in Learning as it is in bearing of a Burthen; where many weak Men may bear that which One or few cannot: But in the ſearch of Knowledg, it fares as in diſcrying a thing afar off; where one quick-ſight will ſee further than a thouſand clear Eyes.
FINIS.
I had not time to gather the Errata of any but the Firſt Book: Correct theſe Greater, or you will miſunderſtand the Matter.
PAge, 27. Line 2. Read ſelf, the Act. p. 54. l. 30. r. as obliging. p. 58. l. 20. for of r. or, p. 59. l. 1, and 2. r. who is not. p. 86. l. 32. for OURS r. OUR Righteouſneſs. p. 88. l. 7. for Covenanted r. Connoted. p. 97. l. 31. r. and ſuffering. p. 103. l. 9, 10. for have us Holy, r. leave us unholy. p. 110. l. 10. for we, r. were. p. 111. l. penult. and p. 112. l. 5. and 10. for our, r. one. l. 21. for but, r. muſt. p. 115. l. 25. for raze out, r. rake up, p. 117. l. 18. r. perſonating Repreſentation. p. 118. l. 2. for Miniſter, r. Meriter. p. 119. l. 16. for are, r. are not. p. 140. l. 23. for if, r. that. p. 126. l. 23. for arrive, r. arm. p. 149. l. 19. r. and the. p. 153. l. 23. r. and will. p. 154. l. 26. r. our own-innocency, it. p. 157. l. 29. r. Private, but. p. 169. l. 2. r. conditional. p. 177. l. 9. r. ſufficiency, p. 181. l. 27. for argument, r. agreement.
The Leſſer Errata.
PReface p. 3. l. 16. r. eternal. Contents, p. 2. l. 21. r. Wotton. p. 11. l. 4. for no, r. in. l. 17. r. praetendit. l. 27. r. ſufficere. p. 12. l. 1. r. ficantur: l. 16. r. impetrando, l. antipen. r. Credimus. p. 13. l. 2. r. praecedit. p. 16. l. 26. r. Schluſſel Burgius. p. 22. l. 9. for that, r. the p. 36. l. antipen. dele by. p. 55. l. 10. for no, r. not. p. 60. l. 15. for then, r. there. p. 64. l. 5. for of, r. or. p. 68. l. 28. r. ſo to. p. 80. l. 17. r. if you will ſontes. p. 91. l. 20. dele the. p. 94. l. 2. for but, r. as. l. 11. dele and. p. 102. l. 1. r. per. p. 104. l. antipen. r. Albericus. p. 135. l. 20. r. praeditus- l. 23. r. aliquem. p. 112. l. 28. r. relatione. p. 116. l. 21. r. fulfillers. p. 120. l. 11. r. Vaſquez. p. 150. l. 26. r. indebitae. p. 167. l. 29. for if, r. is. p. 184. l. penult. for as, r. and.